1/30/2016

The trend of development in GRCs

The statisticians and social scientists that read trends to predict the future and who are looking at the trend of GRC development would point to one conclusion. I show you the conclusion later.

We started with single seat constituencies. Every MP stood for one constituency to represent one constituency of people. Then the conventional wisdom and realities changed. There was a need to ensure minority candidates are present in Parliament. The wisdom of the day said the people would be voting on ethnic grounds and minority candidates would not be elected in the future. No one was up to it to question this hard truth. So that was it. There shall be light, oops, there shall be GRCs. Each GRC should have 3 or 4 candidates with one from the minorities.

After a few elections, different needs appeared. Now the reason was not to ensure minority representation but other convenient or practical reasons like economy of scale, efficiency, expediency, ministers very busy so need other MPs to cover for them, or when one dies, others can cover the dead MP’s duties and so on and on. See the shifting goal posts and reasons?

Then we have bigger and bigger GRCs, the unsinkable battleship, the bigger the battle. Weak oppositions were struggling to catch up to field even a GRC with decent candidate and with the cash. But that was their problem. Big GRCs were good and the intent and purpose were good. It was good for the politics of the country, like Elected President was better than Appointed President.

Then again things changed. Big GRCs not so good leh. So must have lesser big GRCs. Reasons I am still blur. And now I heard there is a need to have more smaller GRCs and SMCs. Reasons I also dunno but must be good for the political system and for the country and people.

See the trend and reasoning? So the next change, what would be the next change, what is the trend leading to? Yes, GRCs are bad and we must go back to SMCs.  Why, because the people are not really racist, they are Singaporeans and colour blind. The Singaporeans would vote for good candidates regardless of race, language and religion. This is in the national pledge, idiot. There is no need for GRCs. And some may be wondering, which smart alec came up with this GRC thing? What crap! But this is the future. I am bringing this up as a social scientist would do, to study the social trend and make a prediction of the future political system as the trend will take. As they say, things will come around in circles.


All back to square one. In the process everyone was taken for a ride without a say and without knowing why.  And who knows, there will be no more Elected President in the future and the President sitting in the Istana will be just a ceremonial president and no multi million dollar salaries in the future, just a presidential stipends of $500k a year.

30 comments:

Anonymous said...

Populist Politicians & Populist Parties Are Winning widespread support

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user92183/imageroot/2016/01/Populists.png

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-29/if-recovery-real-why-are-radical-politicians-so-damn-popular-bofa-asks
--------------------------

Is it time to support & vote SDP ??

Anonymous said...

// All back to square one. In the process everyone was taken for a ride without a say and without knowing why.//

Is this not how things work in ancient feudal kingdoms?

Anonymous said...

At least in such ( ancient ) kingdoms and modern day DPRK, the ancient Emperors, Kings and current Great Leader Kim Jong Un made no pretense of democracy at work?

Anonymous said...

This is a warped system?

Anonymous said...

A farce?

Anonymous said...

No?

Anonymous said...

The "greatest farce in modern history"?

Anonymous said...

A "wolf in sheep's clothing"?

Anonymous said...

A "wolf in sheep's clothing"?
January 30, 2016 10:16 am

maybe an idiot in white clothing?

jjgg said...

Anybody who thinks that all this tweaking is to ensure greater transparency , representations n democracy must be daft. PAP just wants to tighten its grip n stifle any semblance of protests. First inkling of problem in elected presidency n they change the system. How many of the present day parliamentarians voted for the grc n elected presidency. How many of them have voted for the changes. Changes to our constitution, bedrock of our rights, should not be changed as frequently as our soiled clothing store.

Anonymous said...

Haha......

Daft Sinkies are enjoying every
tweaklings, they are bored.

Anyway, manipulation and
exploitation work best with the
Dafts.
The Perpetrators are so sure
such that they even call those they
play with, DAFT in their faces.
How ironic can it be?

Ⓜatilah $ingapura⚠️ said...

The advent of more (single seat) SMCs simply means that budding political "representatives" of the people will have to work EXTRA HARD to gain the confidence, trust and VOTE of the citizens.

Those motherfuckers who are complaining just want the easy way out. No such thing. For me, if you want my vote, you'd better be a smart, hard-working (almost) "super human". If you're are a complaining lazy cunt, you may fuck off, eat shit and die---you don't deserve the PRIVILEGE of representing me. I don't give a flying fuck on what party you represent or if you're independent.

SMCs are the platform for can-do INDIVIDUALISM---i.e. the constituency wants to know how well their candidate can stand alone as individual, with qualities broadly defined by the Cantonese as "mo tuck ting".

Fuck the kampung spirit. Do you have "mo tuck ting" spirit?

Virgo49 said...


The late Dictator after got kicked out by the Mats in 1965 think that He is Magnanimous and wants to teach everyone in the Universe the Way to treat the minorities.

So want to teach the Bumis in Malaysia that they must be also be magnanimous like Him. Put minorities MPs in Parliament. Put minority as President.

Now even the Son follow his example. But all these at the expense of the Daft majority.

These boh lien cho yellow bananas has no liking for the true breed Chinkies and on the pretext of been magnanimous let their own race suffer.

HDB flats, chinks chinks can applied and wait for five to ten years no result. Others just apply now get the flats tomorrow.

Yet the daft daft chinks chinks said Boh Piang. Suai ah???

We opened mouth and said something as the truth about the these parasites and they said Hey Treason. Causing racial problems, throw you and rot inside then you know.

Whereas them said about us, aiya small matter lah. As the majority must give way to them lah.

Yet the Daft daft sinkies loved all these abuses.

Pui!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Hard to expect khongcums to know that they have pawned and sold themselves.
They are bought over but think they have a damn good deal.

How to wake up the Dafts?

Anonymous said...

Just like YEW retrained an adult dog, if it can be done?

Anonymous said...

@ AnonymousJanuary 30, 2016 9:39 am
//Is it time to support & vote SDP ??//


1) If sinkies want to do that, they would have done it long ago?

So that is not the main point?

What is probably the most salient point could be to show sinkies the purpose ( or usefulness ) of doing that?

Anonymous said...

Historically, there are 2 main ( political ) systems:?

Namely 1) Autocratic system and

2) Democratic system .....?

Anonymous said...

Voters would be interested ( to know ) what would be best suited for a tiny state like sinkieland in the modern nation states ( international political ) system and under the current global economic, financial and trading systems?

Anonymous said...

2) Thus it could be very pertinent to sinkies whether the current mode is the best way forward sinkieland can muster and whether it can be further fortified?

Anonymous said...

3) That has to go back a long period in history?

There must be a ( historical ) basis?

Sinkies need to see what the ( historical ) precedences were?

Anonymous said...

4) At the current juncture, what could a or any political party serve to achieve ( to ensure a better outcome and NOT any outcome or a different outcome )?

Anonymous said...

5) To find the space to remain relevance, a or any political party must show a SERIOUSNESS of purpose?

What they seek to achieve ( for sinkies )?

And how they can really do it?

Anonymous said...

6) As much as there are many imperfections and potential pot holes ahead ( under the current system ), would ( majority of the ) sinkies believe if a or any political party assert they can achieve a better outcome, not withstanding all the current ( and often acute ) inadequacies?

Anonymous said...

7) Thus, to remain relevance and to play a positive role in influencing a BETTER OUTCOME for sinkies, a or any opposition political party, seeking to have any significant meaning ( in the eyes of sinkies and for its purpose of existence ) to play a part ( in sinkieland's and sinkies wellbeing ) needs to define ( or define ) its purpose ( and/ or objectives )?

Anonymous said...

8) It is like the market place?

Any product, company and individual cannot exist for the sole purpose it wants to exist?

They must fulfill or fill a need ( to remain viable )?

Anonymous said...

9) Just by saying they want to be the co-drivers and play the ( "rude" and convenient ) role of "slapping" the drivers ( from their slumber )?

Is it enough ( by just asserting that )?

From empirical evidences, it has proven ( that ) the electorate is far more sophisticated than that?

Anonymous said...

10) Thus the "premise" that //Is it time to support & vote SDP ??// CANNOT BE MORE FAR OFF the key ( salient ) point?

It will lead to nowhere but further away from the electorate?

Knowing the electorate's needs and the abilities to fulfil these needs are two different things and the ( majority of ) electorate are able to differentiate?

Anonymous said...

11) Without a ( major ) reform within ( the creditable ) opposition parties, politics ( in sinkieland ) would likely continue to languish at its current state?

Voters would need to continue to hold their noses every time they make their choices ( bcos of the pathetic state of the alternatives ) and choose the least ugliest ( and least "stinky" )?

It will likely continue to be a contest of the ugly ( and "the stinky" if no major changes take place within opposition camps )?

Anonymous said...

12) SDP or any opposition party, cannot go far, despite their good intentions ( if any )?

In war, to fight a battle, YEW need a war chest, to begin with?

To better a society ( in a democracy ), YEW need to win political "battles and elections" to begin with?

When the war chest ( of a political party ) is as big as the piggy bank of an oldie's kindergarten grandchild, can there ever be any hope ( of a different outcome )?

Can YEW fight a ( winning ) battle say in a war zone with the war chest ( piggy bank ) of a child?

How much can YEW raise ( with a marathon walk despite the commendable effort )?

Anonymous said...

13) Whether SDP or any other opposition party, the war ( or battle ) is already lost before it begins if their war chest is always as big as a child's piggy bank?

They need to solve this problem before even contemplating to wage a ( political and electoral ) battle?

To fight a battle or war in the real battle field, it is not even the ammunitions and weapons to start with?

It is the ration, the water and the food, the fuel, the supplies?

The troops would be starved to death without firing a bullet or the enemy needing to do so?

Without a ( proper ) war chest ( and not any child's size piggy bank ), the battle is already lost even before it started?

The 2021 GE is already lost in 2016?

To play a positive role ( and better the outcome for sinkies ), any opposition must take stock and redefine their entire existence and premise and how to achieve their needs to fulfil sinkies and sinkieland's needs?

Otherwise, it is just a futile exercise and sinkieland is a one party state in perpetuity. The fall ( and/ or failing ) of the one party would be the fall ( and/ or failing ) of sinkieland and sinkies?

There is no 2 way about it under such circumstances?

And all opposition parties do not deserve any victory bcos they will not if they cannot even get past their first hurdle, as much as the first hurdle is full of hurdles?